USPTO Patents Application 09989252

Amendment

Serial No. 09/989,252

Docket No. PHFR 000121

REMARKS

Reconsideration of all grounds of objection and rejection, and allowance of the
pending claims are respectfully requested in light of the above amendments and the
following remarks. Claims 1-4, of which claims 1 and 4 have been amended only to
improve form and not in view of the cited references, remain pending herein as shown
above.

(1) The specification was objected to because there were no section headings.
Applicant has amended the specification to include section headings consistent with U.S.
practice. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this ground of objection are respectfully
requested.

(2) Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.§103(a) over Yagasaki et al. (U.S.
6,414,991 hereafter "Yagasaki" in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 6,057,884 hereafter "Chen").
Applicants respectfully traverse this ground of rejection at least for the reasons indicated
herein below.

Applicants respectfully submit that instant claim 1 recites a coding method
including a base layer encoding means for receiving a video sequence and generating
base layer signals that correspond to one or more video objects (VOs) by segmenting the
video sequence into one or more VOs, and coding a plurality of successive video object
planes (VOPs) of each of said VOs by performing a series of sub-steps. Base claim 4
recites an apparatus claim reciting means for carrying out the series of sub-steps.

The sub-steps include coding the texture of the VOPS, and coding the shape of the
VOPS. The texture coding sub-step includes performing a first coding operation without
prediction for the VOPs, performing a second coding operation with a unidirectional

7

Amendment

Serial No. 09/989,252

DocketNo. PHFR 000121

prediction for the VOPs (called predictive or P-VOps), which are coded using only a past
I or P-VOp as a temporal reference. Subsequently, a third coding operation is performed
with a bi-directional predictive or B-VOPS, coded using both past and future I- or P-
VOPS as temporal references.

In particular, according to the instantly claimed invention, the temporal reference
of the enhancement layer P-VOPs is selected only as the temporally closest candidate,
and the two temporally enhancement candidates of the enhancement layer, in ether case
without any consideration of the layer to which the temporally closest candidates belong.

In contrast, the combination of Yagasaki and Chen fails to disclose the above
teachings. First, it is admitted in the Office Action Yagasaki fails to specify the coding of
texture and shape information. Although Chen allegedly discloses shape and texture
data, it is respectfully submitted that the combination of references fails to disclose or
suggest the coding of texture and shape information without any consideration of the
layer to which the temporally closest candidates belong.

Applicants note that Chen teaches at column 16, lines 32-41 and with reference to
Figure 8 that the base layer B includes B-VOPs 815 and 820. Chen states that "B-VOPs
815 and 820 are predicted using other base layer VOPs, as shown by arrows 810,840, 835
and 825, respectively." In addition, Chen teaches that P-VOP 830 is predicted by I-VOP
805. I-VOP 830 is not the closest temporal candidate to P-VOP 830. Applicants also
respectfully submit that instant claim 1 recites "only" the closest temporal candidate.

In addition Yagasaki is silent with regard to closest temporal candidates, wherein
column 15, line 19, to column 16, line 14 (quoted in the Office Action), fails to provide

8

Amendment

Serial No. 09/989,252

DockefNo. PHFR 000121

any teaching or suggesting about closest temporal candidates. All Yagasaki is saying is
that different flags are set when reference images of VOPs from different layers are used.

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have found any teaching, suggestion, or motivation gleaned from the
combination of references such that any of the instant claims would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Applicants respectfully submit that the MPEP's explanation of a proper prima facie

case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.§103(a) includes a citation to In re Fritch, 973, F.2d

1260,1266, 23 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992), wherein the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit has held that:

The mere fact that the prior art
may be modified in the manner suggested
by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.

Here, the Office Action has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness as the
suggested desirability is of the modification as recited by Applicant's instant claims is
lacking in such teaching, motivation and suggestion that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have gleaned from the combination of references at the time of invention .

Reconsideration and withdrawal of this ground of rejection are respectfully
requested.

9

Amendment

Serial No. 09/989,252

DockefNo. PHFR 000121

For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that all the present claims
are patentable in view of the cited references. A Notice of Allowance is respectfully
requested.

Date: August 18, 2003

Respectfully submitted,

Russell Gross
Registration No. 40,007

By: Steve <

Attorney for Applicant
Registration No. 44,069

Mail all correspondence to:

Russell Gross, Registration No. 40,007
US PHILIPS CORPORATION
P.O. Box 3001

Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8001
Phone: (914) 333-9608
Fax: (914)332-0615

Certificate of Mailing Under 37 CFR 1.8

I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal
Service as first class mail in an envelope addressed to MAIL STOP NON-FEE
AMENDMENT, COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS, P.O. BOX 1450^LEXANDRIA,
VA. 223 13 on August 18, 2003.

Steve Cha. Reg. No. 44.069
(Name of Registered Rep.)

ITgnature and Date)

10